I agree. I think *the* major strength of MQTT is its simplicity.
I can look at the specification or API and see quickly how I might
implement it and use it. As MQTT has capabilities added to it in
future, I hope we are careful not to lose this strength.

Ian

On 06/04/2014 07:45 PM, David Janes
wrote:

It's often the constraints that make a system
powerful. The history of computer systems is complicated
powerful solutions for simpler constrained ones. Back in the day
my VMS colleagues were on about how much better the modes the
VMS file system provided were over UNIX's simplistic character
mode.

In the last year and half I've had to learn probably
30-50 new systems / technologies related to the IoT. I
appreciate being able to pick up MQTT and be able to
understand it[*] and use it in 30 minutes. Especially when
that tech provides a solution for one of the biggest
problems in APIs today.

You could spend a summer trying to figure out what the
hell XMPP does for you.

After continuing the flame war on Tweeter, looks like
they don't
understand what is IoT: contrained devices on
constrained networks.

Correct, I would also add that MQTT is being used in so many
situations where nor the device neither the network is
totally constrained (smartphones?) and so misunderstanding
on intentions of specifications may arise.

Already seen here and on other MQTT-related lists: the
protocol is a perfect fit when resources are limited, but
it's so sexy in a number of different situations where the
developer has a feeling of being too limited using such a
simple and efficient protocol, and so demand for more
features and complications arises.